REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

SALT LAKE COUNTY

Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) for EPA Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant

RFP #ORD134175

Date of Issue: September 10, 2026

Office of Regional Development Economic Development

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 1: Overview and Instructions

1.1 Purpose of the Request for Proposals

1.2 Deadline for Proposal Submission

1.3 Projected Schedule for the RFP Process

1.4 Pre-Proposal WebEx Meeting

1.5 Question Submission

Part 2: Scope of Work and Requirements

2.1 Background

2.2 Scope of Work

2.3 Length of Agreement

2.4 Fee, Payment and Escalation Clause

2.5 Insurance Requirements

2.6 Proposal Format / Submission Requirements

Part 3: Response Evaluation and Notice to Proposers

3.1 Evaluation and Scoring Criteria

3.2 Written Agreement Required

3.3 Notice to Proposers

EXHIBIT A – EPA-Approved Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant Workplan EXHIBIT B - Site Eligibility Determination (SED) EXHIBIT C – Pricing Proposal

ATTACHMENT A - Proposal Cover Summary ATTACHMENT B – Request for Protected Status ATTACHMENT C – Procurement Preference System ATTACHMENT D – Environmental Compliance Practices ATTACHMENT E – Example RFP Agreement

Part 1: Overview and Instructions

1.1 Purpose of the Request for Proposals “RFP”

Salt Lake County, on behalf of the Office of Regional Development and Economic Development Division (“County”) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms (“Proposer / Contractor”) to provide Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) services to fulfill its obligations under a federal grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for brownfields assessments.

1.2 Deadline for Proposal Submission

Proposals must be uploaded before 1:00 PM on October 13, 2026, in Contracts and Procurement online solicitation system, the Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P) powered by Bonfire. No proposals will be accepted after the closing date and time.

1.3 Projected Schedule for the RFP Process

County reserves the right to modify the following schedule at its discretion:

Activity Date

Issue RFP September 10, 2026 Pre-Proposal WebEx Meeting September 18, 2026, at 9:00 am Final day to submit questions October 1, 2026 Proposal Due Date October 13, 2026 Committee Meeting October 21, 2026 Proposer Interviews (if needed) TBD Anticipated Notice of Award October 22, 2026 Anticipated Notice to Proceed November 10, 2026

1.4 Pre-Proposal WebEx Meeting

Interested Proposers are invited to participate in a pre-proposal WebEx meeting to discuss the project and to ask questions about this RFP. It will be held on September 18, 2026, beginning at 9:00 am MDT. Please contact Teresa Young, tyoung@saltlakecounty.gov to request the WebEx meeting information.

Proposers are encouraged to submit their questions in writing before the meeting through the county’s online solicitation system the Utah Public Procurement Place (U3P) powered by Bonfire. The meeting is for informational purposes only and is not binding. If the RFP needs to be modified or clarified, the County will issue a written amendment on U3P Bonfire.

1.5 Question Submission

Questions may be submitted through U3P Bonfire until the deadline for questions submission which is October 1, 2026, at 1:00 pm. Answers to the questions will be posted in U3P Bonfire for everyone to view. Do not contact County officers or employees, or selection committee members.

Part 2: Scope of Work and Requirements

2.1 Background

Salt Lake County Economic Development has successfully managed a succession of EPA Brownfields Assessment Coalition grants since 2008. Most recently, the EPA awarded the County and its Coalition partners $1.5 million to continue this work. A majority of this most recent grant award will pay for environmental assessments that characterize the types and severity of contaminants on properties where reuse or redevelopment plans are inhibited by environmental unknowns.

2.2 Scope of Work

Salt Lake County, in coalition with Magna City and Community Development Corporation of Utah (CDCU), is the recipient of an EPA coalition assessment grant to characterize, assess, and plan clean-up activities for eligible brownfields sites within the County. This grant will evaluate target properties that have an established or suspected history of petroleum or hazardous substance contamination, where uncertainty exists due to real or perceived contamination, and where communities will benefit from assessment and clean-up planning efforts. This grant will produce ASTM-compliant Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), Phase II ESAs, asbestos-containing and hazardous building materials survey reports, and clean-up planning documents for property owners within priority areas and elsewhere in the County. This grant will also fully comply with all other EPA-required documentation, including but not limited to Site Eligibility Determinations (SEDs), Site-specific Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs), and Analysis of Brownfields Clean-up Alternatives (ABCAs). Work under this RFP will begin immediately after selection of the successful firm and will end on or before 9/30/2030.

Tasks to be Completed

1. The QEP will identify potential projects, secure site access, conduct assessment work, and prepare clean-up planning documents associated with the EPA Assessment Grant workplan (Exhibit A).

2. The QEP will develop a County-wide Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

All properties assessed under the grant will meet EPA eligibility requirements, and the QEP may assist in drafting a Site Eligibility Determination (SED, Exhibit B) on select properties in cooperation with the grant program manager. The QEP will secure access for assessment work, with assistance from coalition members and the Brownfields Advisory Committee. The QEP will complete at least 31 ASTM/AAI compliant Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) on eligible sites. The QEP will complete at least 27 Site Specific Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and Phase II ESAs on at least 23 eligible properties. For Phase II ESAs, the QEP will collect samples that may include but are not limited to soil, soil gas, surface water and groundwater to develop environmental condition profiles of key properties.

The QEP will complete at least 7 asbestos/hazardous material surveys on eligible sites.

3. All individual projects must first be approved by the County, and no work shall begin until the County issues written approval. The final numbers of SEDs, SAPs, ESAs, and clean-up planning documents are likely to be higher than the numbers listed above, and the program manager will work closely with the QEP to manage assessment progress and budgets.

2.3 Length of Agreement

The contract resulting from this solicitation will become effective on the date of execution through September 30, 2030, or until the end of the grant period.

There is no guarantee that contract(s) will be awarded from this solicitation.

2.4 Fee, Payment and Escalation Clause

The total amount to be paid by the County for the Contractor to complete all work and services required under this Agreement shall not exceed $1,369,916.

Pricing is firm through 9/30/2028. The awarded Proposer may request one price adjustment (maximum of 3%), effective 10/1/2028 and holding through the end of the contract term on 9/30/2030. The written request must be submitted between 7/1/2028 and 8/1/2028 with documentation of the applicable index change. Only one adjustment is permitted over the life of the contract.

Individual assessment pricing is established for a range of expenses per assessment type as per the pricing submitted on Exhibit C in response to the

RFP.

The County may authorize exceptions to the pricing contained in Exhibit C in the event that the County, in its sole discretion, determines that the conditions existing on a particular property require extensive services.

The Contractor may submit monthly progress payments against the agreed upon not-to-exceed price for work completed in the prior month. The County reserves the right to correct any invoice.

2.5 Insurance Requirements

Insurance will be required per the amounts listed below. Please refer to the attached example agreement for information concerning insurance requirements.

A. Workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the State of Utah.

B. Commercial general liability insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence with a $3,000,000 general policy aggregate with the County named as an additional insured.

C. Professional liability insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence with a $2,000,000 annual policy aggregate limit.

D. Commercial automobile liability insurance that provides coverage in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence per person/ $2,000,000 per accident / $500,000 property damage OR single combined limit of $2,000,000 with the County named as an additional insured.

—OR IF THERE WILL NOT BE ANY VEHICLE OPERATIONS—

E. The Contractor shall not operate a vehicle in connection with any services rendered under this Agreement. Inasmuch as the Contractor agrees not to operate a vehicle in connection with services rendered under this Agreement, the County shall not require the Contractor to provide commercial automobile liability insurance.

2.6 Proposal Format / Submission Requirements

Submit proposals in the online solicitation system (U3P). All proposals should be formatted as three (3) separate PDFs: 1) Program Proposal; 2) Pricing Proposal; and 3) Supplemental Attachments (Optional). NO MORE THAN

THREE (3) SEPARATE DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED.

Proposers must submit a narrative response to the elements outlined in 3.1 Evaluation and Scoring Criteria and conform to the submission requirements listed below.

Proposals not following the Proposal Format/Submission Requirements outlined herein, may result in being deemed non-responsive.

1. Program Proposal (PDF #1):

A. Document #1 (Program Proposal) should begin with the completed Attachment A Proposal Cover Summary (Required). Attachment A is not included in the page count.

a. Table of Contents should be included, organized in the same order as the Evaluation Criteria in Section 3.1 (not included in the page count).

b. Format should be 1) 8-1/2 X 11 size with white background 2) portrait layout only and 3) black 12-point font. Section headings may be in color and a larger font.

c. Title page and cover letters are not required but are acceptable and count toward the narrative page count.

B. The narrative response to the elements outlined in 3.1 Evaluation Scoring Criteria may not exceed 20-pages.

C. The Program Proposal should include within the PDF all exhibits (Resumes count toward the narrative limit, all other exhibits do not count toward the narrative limit).

D. The Program Proposal PDF with all attachments, exhibits, appendices, etc., is limited to 10 MB to allow for electronic distribution.

2. Pricing Proposal (PDF #2): Exhibit C.

A. Excel in lieu of PDF documents are acceptable unless otherwise specified in the RFP.

3. Attachments (PDF #3) A. Attachments B, C, D, E (Optional)

1. If requesting protected record status complete Attachment B and upload a redacted program proposal.

• All documents submitted in response to this RFP will be treated as public records in accordance with GRAMA unless a claim of business confidentiality is submitted. Refer to Section 3.3.A.

• Failure to provide a redacted copy, or otherwise comply with the requirements, waives your request for protected record.

2. If requesting preferences, include the completed Attachment C and proof. Refer to Section 3.1.A.

3. Attachment D County’s Environmental Compliance Practices and Non-

Debarment Certification compliance. Proposers should attest to the Attachment D compliance statement in the U3P event Questions Section. Proposers are not required to submit a signed Attachment D.

4. If requesting alterations to Attachment E or the RFP per Section 3.2 of this RFP, include a PDF of items requested and reasonable alteration desired.

Part 3: Response Evaluation and Notice to Proposers

3.1 Evaluation and Scoring Criteria

Response to the program proposal will be evaluated, scored, and ranked by a Selection Committee. Each member of the committee will be provided a score sheet to complete the proposal evaluation utilizing the point system listed below. Committee Members individually score the proposals and rank them 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. according to their total score. The following point system is utilized:

Excellent (5): If the proposal offer exceeds expectations, with an excellent probability of success in achieving all requirements of the RFP, and is very detailed in providing innovative ideas, new concepts or optional features applicable to the project; a score of “5” is given.

Good (4): If the proposal offers a very good probability of success, achieves all requirements of the RFP in a reasonable fashion and provides some innovative ideas, new concepts or optional features applicable to the project; a score of “4” is given.

Acceptable (3): If the proposal offers a reasonable probability of success, but some of the requirements may not be met and does not include innovative ideas, new concepts or optional features applicable to the project; a score of “3” is given.

Poor (1-2): If the proposal falls short of expectations and has a low probability of success; a score of “1-2” is given.

Unacceptable: If the approach completely fails the requirements; a score of “0” is given.

Proposals will be evaluated, scored, and ranked on the following criteria. The program proposal is 75% of the scoring and the pricing proposal is 25% for a total of 100.

1. Program Proposal

The program proposal will be evaluated, scored, and ranked by a Selection Committee. Each member of the committee will be provided a score sheet to complete the proposal evaluation.

30% Proposer’s Qualifications & Relevant Experience

1. Describe the type of technical guidance the Proposer will provide for site inventory support, site eligibility determination (SED), Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs).

2. Provide detailed experience on at least three projects of comparable scope, size, complexity, and delivery method, prioritizing work performed under an EPA Brownfields Assessment. Provide a point of contact, phone number, and email address for each of these projects.

3. Describe the Proposer's experience working under a coalition or multi-jurisdiction federal grant structure, including how the Proposer coordinated with multiple partner entities, and supported an advisory committee.

4. Describe the Proposer's staff capacity to support assessment activity across target areas within Salt Lake County.

5. Describe the Proposer's experience preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for EPA review and approval, including typical preparation time.

6. Describe the Proposer's experience working with Utah DEQ.

7. Certify that neither the Proposer nor any proposed subconsultant is currently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in federal assistance programs under 2 CFR Part 180 and 2 CFR Part 1532, and that neither is currently debarred or suspended under Salt Lake County or State of Utah procurement rules set forth in Salt Lake County Countywide Policy No. 7010: Procurement and Utah Code § 63G-6a-904.

The County will independently verify exclusion status in SAM.gov before award.

The Proposer must immediately notify the County if its status changes at any point during the procurement or the resulting contract term.

5% Project Team

1. Provide an organizational chart showing the level of organizational responsibility for all major participants on the Proposer's team. Include resumes for principals, partners, and key team members who will be directly involved, showing education, professional registrations, certifications, and relevant project experience. Identify the single point of contact for the County.

2. If any part of the work is performed by a subconsultant or subcontractor, state each firm's name and its role under this contract. Proposer and subconsultants or subcontractors must be in compliance with federal requirements (statute, rules, executive orders), including any requirements in the award when/if granted.

35% Project Management

1. Describe the Proposer's overall project management approach, including issue escalation, status reporting frequency and format, and staffing management.

2. Describe the Proposer's approach to cost control.

3. Describe the Proposer's accounting and records systems for verification of costs and services, including invoice detail provided, supporting documentation available on request.

4. Describe the Proposer's communication plan for the project team.

5. Identify the performance metrics the Proposer proposes for this contract, such as deliverable turnaround time, first-round regulatory acceptance rate, and budget variance by task. State the target for each metric and the remedy the Proposer offers if a target is not met.

5% Sustainable Business Practices

The County has an interest in measures used by its suppliers to ensure sustainable operations with minimal adverse impact on the environment. Please state whether your firm has a formal sustainability program or policy and, if so, please attach a copy as an appendix to your proposal (does not count in the Program Proposal page count). Please list measures such as alternative fuel vehicles, recycling measures, and energy reduction measures used by your firm in its operations.

2. Pricing Proposal:

The pricing proposal will be reviewed separately.

25% Proposers must complete Exhibit C Pricing Proposal

Provide pricing for each scenario below. State the assumptions underlying each price, including assumed staff classifications, hours, field days, and analytical scope.

1. Price to complete a Region 8 Site Eligibility Determination request on behalf of a property owner. (See Exhibit C for template.)

2. Price to prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan for EPA review and approval.

3. Price to complete a Phase I ESA consistent with ASTM E1527-21 on:

a. A single parcel.

b. Three adjacent parcels under a single owner.

4. Price range for a site-specific Sampling and Analysis Plan as a precursor to a Phase II ESA. Explain the conditions that would affect pricing variations in the final SAP.

5. Price range (low range to high range, with a likely average stated) to complete a Phase II ESA under each of the following scenarios.

a. Low complexity: a single parcel under one acre, soil sampling only, no known structures.

b. Moderate complexity: a single parcel of one to five acres requiring soil and groundwater sampling.

c. High complexity: a parcel of five acres or more requiring soil, groundwater, and soil gas sampling, or a site with a vacant structure requiring asbestos and lead-based paint survey.

6. Price to complete a cleanup planning and cost estimate document, or an Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives for a public entity, if a Phase II ESA determines that cleanup is necessary.

7. Hourly rate for principal, project manager, and administrative support.

8. Markup, administrative fee, or handling charge applied to subconsultant and laboratory costs, stated as a percentage. If no markup is applied, state so.

Pricing must include all services required to complete the project herein which includes: any and all professional fees; and any and all costs the Proposer may incur, including any costs for transportation, lodging, communication, printing, etc.

A. Preference System Salt Lake County may adjust scoring pursuant to its Preference System established by ordinance and policy. Please complete Attachment C preference system and include the required proof of request.

B. Interview, Demonstration, and Site Visit.

The Selection Committee may invite Proposers for an interview, demonstration, or conduct a site visit. The purpose is clarification and verification of the written proposal. The Selection Committee may re-score the proposal after the interview, demonstration, or site visit.

C. Recommended Award After the Selection Committee has completed their evaluation, they will notify the County Mayor of the top-ranked Proposer. Award is conditioned upon the execution of a satisfactory contract.

D. Debrief Meetings Debrief meetings with the selection committee members will not be allowed, however, a Proposer may discuss the RFP process with the chair/facilitator of the committee at any time.

3.2 Written Agreement Required

The selected Proposer must agree to all requirements in the RFP scope of work.

The selected Proposer must also be willing to enter into a written agreement with County and agree to all the terms set forth in the Example Agreement, attached to this RFP.

If you wish to request alterations to the RFP, including any of the terms of the example RFP Agreement (Attachment E), or any of the exhibits, attachments, or addenda, the alterations must be specifically identified in your proposal with reasonable alternatives presented. Any such exceptions must be submitted as a separate PDF and labeled “Requested Alterations.” Only those alterations so specified will be available for discussion or negotiation. Proposer understands that deviations from the Example Agreement are made at the County’s sole discretion. The County reserves the right to make minor adjustments to the agreement contingent upon the final EPA grant requirements.

Proposers are advised that the County is not bound by the terms of the RFP until a written agreement is fully executed and any activity taken on by the Proposer prior to full execution of a written agreement is done at the Proposer’s sole risk.

3.3 Notice to Proposers

By submitting a proposal to this RFP, Proposer understands and agrees to the following:

A. Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA):

County is a governmental entity subject to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”), Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-2-101 to -901. As a result, County is required to disclose certain information and materials to the public, upon request. Generally, any document submitted to County is considered a “public record” under GRAMA. Any person who provides to County a record that the person believes merits protection under subsection 63G-2-305(1) or (2) must submit with their proposal all of the following: (1) a written claim of business confidentiality, (2) a concise statement of reasons supporting the claim of business confidentiality, and (3) a separate copy of the proposal with the information requested to be protected redacted. Failure to comply with any of the three requirements for a claim of business confidentiality waives the request for protected record. Generally, GRAMA only protects against the disclosure of trade secrets or commercial information that could reasonably be expected to result in unfair competitive injury.

For your convenience, County has provided a Business Confidentiality Request Form which is attached to this RFP as Attachment B. All documents submitted in response to this RFP will be treated as public records in accordance with GRAMA, unless a claim of business confidentiality has been properly made and approved by County. All proposed costs/pricing/fees submitted to the county are public records. An entire proposal cannot be identified as “PROTECTED,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY” and may be considered non-responsive if marked as such.

B. Copyrighted Material Waiver: In the event that the proposal contains copyrighted or trademarked materials, by submitting its proposal the Proposer grants the County the right to use, reproduce, and publish the copyrighted or trademark materials in any manner the County deems necessary for conducting County business and for allowing public access to the responses under GRAMA or otherwise, including but not limited to photocopying, County Intranet/Internet postings, broadcast faxing, and direct mailing.

If the proposal contains materials whose copyright or trademark is held by a third party, it is the Proposer’s sole responsibility to obtain permission from that third party for the County to reproduce and publish the information.

By submitting its proposal, the Proposer certifies that it owns or it has obtained all necessary approvals for the reproduction or distribution of the contents of the proposal and agrees to indemnify, protect, save and hold the County, its representatives and employees harmless from any and all claims arising from all intellectual property claims related or connected to the proposal and agrees to pay all legal fees incurred by the County in the defense of any such action.

C. Restrictions On Communications: From the issue date of this solicitation until a Proposer is selected and the selection is announced, Proposers are prohibited from communications regarding this procurement with agency staff, evaluation committee members, or other associated individuals EXCEPT the Buyer overseeing this procurement. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in disqualification.

D. RFP Cancellation: This RFP may be cancelled at any time prior to the execution of a written agreement if deemed in the best interests of County.

This includes cancellation of the RFP after an award has been made, but prior to the execution of a written contract. Proposer is not entitled to recover any costs related to the preparation of the proposal due to cancellation of the RFP or withdrawal of an award prior to the execution of a written agreement.

E. Firm Pricing: All prices, quotes, or proposals are to remain firm for 120 days after the closing date, unless a different period is stated in County’s RFP. Any proposal that does not offer to remain firm for the required period may be considered to be non-responsive.

F. Costs: Proposers bears all costs and expenses related to this RFP including, but not limited to, preparation and delivery of the proposal, attending the pre-proposal conference, and attending the interview.

G. Licensing: All applicable federal, state, and local licenses must be acquired before the contract is entered into between County and the selected Proposer. Licenses must be maintained throughout the entire contract period. Persons doing business as an Individual, Association, Partnership, Corporation, or otherwise must be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. NOTE: Forms and information on registration may be obtained by calling (801) 530-4849 or toll free at 877-526-3994, or by accessing: https://corporations.utah.gov/.

H. Changes or Modifications: Any changes or modification to the RFP will be made by written addendum. Proposer submitting a proposal based on any information other than that contained in County’s RFP and any amendments (addenda), do so at their own risk.

I. Receiving Proposals: Contracts and Procurement will administer receipt and opening of all proposals. After the closing time, only the identity of each Proposer will be made public. If only one proposal is received in response to County request, Contracts and Procurement, in coordination with the agency requesting the project, may recommend entering into a contract to the single Proposer if the conditions cited above are met.

Alternatively, Contracts and Procurement may re-solicit for the purpose of obtaining additional proposals.

J. Rejection of Proposals: Any proposal containing significant deviations from the specifications of the RFP will be considered non-responsive and may be rejected in whole or in part.

K. Protests: Pursuant to Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances § 3.20.150, a protest in regard to the RFP document must be submitted in writing prior to the RFP closing date. All other protests must be submitted in writing within five (5) business days after notification of the award is posted on U3P. A protestor may file only one (1) protest after the RFP closing date.

Protest letters must specifically and completely state the facts that the protestor believes constitute error in the RFP document or the award.

L. Free and Competitive Selection: Any agreement or collusion among prospective Proposers to fix a price or limit competition will render the proposal void, and such conduct is unlawful and subject to criminal sanction. By submitting a proposal, the Proposer hereby certifies that no one in its firm or company has either directly or indirectly restrained free and competitive selection, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action unauthorized by County Purchasing Ordinances or applicable law.

M. Ethical Standards: Proposer represents that it has not: (a) provided an illegal gift to any County officer or employee, or former County officer or employee, or to any relative or business entity of a County officer or employee, or relative or business entity of a former County officer or employee; (b) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees of bona fide commercial agencies established for the purpose of securing business; (c) breached any of the ethical standards set forth in State statute or Salt Lake County https://corporations.utah.gov/

Code of Ordinances § 2.07; or (d) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, any County officer or employee or former County officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in State statute or Salt Lake County ordinances.

N. Campaign Contributions: The Salt Lake County campaign finance disclosure ordinance limits campaign contributions by Proposers to County candidates. Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances § 2.72A.

Proposer acknowledges and understands those limitations on campaign contributions mean that any person, business, corporation or other entity that enters into a contract or is engaged in a contract with County is prohibited from making campaign contributions in excess of $100 to County candidates during the term of the contract and during a single election cycle as defined in the ordinance. Proposer further acknowledges that violation of those provisions governing campaign contributions may result in criminal sanctions as well as termination of this Agreement.

O. Reasonable Accommodations: Reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals to attend meetings may be provided upon receipt of a request with two (2) working days’ notice. Please contact Contracts and Procurement at 385.468.0300. TTY users may call 711.

P. Environmentally Responsible Procurement Practices: County has implemented environmentally responsible procurement practices. Please refer to Attachment D.

Q. Notice to Retirees of Utah Retirement Systems (“URS”)

County is a URS “participating employer.” Entering into an agreement with County may affect a URS retiree’s retirement benefits including, but not limited to, cancellation of the retiree’s “retirement allowance” due to “reemployment” with a “participating employer” pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-504 to -505. In addition, Proposer is required to notify County immediately if a retiree of URS is the Proposer; or an owner, operator, or principal of the Proposer. Proposer may refer the URS retiree to the URS Retirement Department at 801-366-7770 or 800-695-4877 for all questions about post-retirement employment regulations.

R. Employee Status Verification System Proposer shall register and participate in the Status Verification System before entering into a contract with County as required by Utah Code Ann.

§ 63G-12-302. The Status Verification System is an electronic system operated by the federal government, through which an authorized official of a state agency or a political subdivision of the state may inquire by exercise of authority delegated pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373 to verify the citizenship or immigration status of an individual within the jurisdiction of the agency or political subdivision. Proposer is individually responsible for verifying the employment status of only new employees who work under Proposer’s supervision or direction and not those who work for another Proposer or subcontractor, except each Proposer or subcontractor who works under or for another Proposer shall certify to the main Proposer by affidavit that the Proposer or subcontractor has verified, through the Status Verification System, the employment status of each new employee of the respective Proposer or subcontractor. The Proposer shall comply in all respects with the provisions of Utah Code Ann. § 63G-12-302.

Proposer’s failure to comply with this requirement may result in the immediate termination of its contract with County.

S. Non-discrimination Proposer shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the performance of any resulting contract. Proposer shall carry out applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 33 in the award and administration of contracts awarded under EPA financial assistance agreements. Failure by the Proposer to carry out these requirements is a material breach of contract which may result in the termination of the contract or other legally available remedies.

T. Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Proposer agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251- 1387). Violations must be reported to the County and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

U. Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment Proposer certifies that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Proposer must also disclose any lobbying with non–Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award and shall require this certification and disclosure at each tier of any subcontract exceeding $100,000.

V. Procurement of Recovered Materials In the performance of any resulting contract, the Proposer shall comply with Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and 2 C.F.R. § 200.323, including by procuring items designated in EPA guidelines at 40 C.F.R.

Part 247 that contain the highest practicable percentage of recovered materials, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecfr.gov%2Fcurrent%2Ftitle-40%2Fpart-33&data=05%7C02%7CTYoung%40saltlakecounty.gov%7C940584ce9688456062af08df083be0ae%7C65168163093b4036abdb7a2d6b6e4948%7C0%7C0%7C639238725410631422%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VhRKJhg8iYCWblkC5Q2LHyFptT8kQJwg3ON9m8E4%2F1s%3D&reserved=0

W. Domestic Preference for Procurements To the greatest extent practicable and consistent with law, Proposer should provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.322. This provision shall be included in all subawards, contracts, and purchase orders under the Federal award.

COALITION ASSESSMENT GRANT WORKPLAN

Salt Lake County Workplan for CERCLA Section 104(k) Assessment Grant Cooperative Agreement

10/1/2026-9/30/2030

Strategic Plan Goal: Provide Clear Air, Land, and Water for Every American; and Objective 1.3: Revitalize Land and Prevent Contamination.

Assistance Listing: 66.818 Assessment, Cleanup, and Revolving Loan Fund Grants

1. OBJECTIVE: Salt Lake County, Magna City, and the Community Development Corporation of Utah (CDCU) (the “Coalition”) are planning to target at least three brownfield priority areas within Salt Lake County to provide clean air, land, and water to every American. The Coalition seeks to assess properties within those target areas that have a high likelihood of redevelopment, to focus on properties that could utilize the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund administered by Salt Lake County to further incentivize redevelopment, and to meet redevelopment and reuse goals for local community partners.

2. BUDGET: $1,500,000

The following are specific task descriptions related to Salt Lake County’s EPA Community-Wide Assessment Grant Workplan, with the majority of funds to be applied towards comprehensive Phase I/II ESAs in strategic County areas.

Tasks under this assessment grant include Task 1: Outreach and Site Identification, Task 2: Assessments, Task 3: Remediation and Reuse Planning, and Task 4: Program Support. More than 88% of the total budget will be spent on Task 2: Assessments.

Budget Categories

Project tasks ($) Task 1:

Outreach and Site Identification

Task 2:

Assessments

Task 3:

Remediation and Reuse Planning

Task 4:

Program Support

Administrative Costs

Totals

D ir ec t C os t

Personnel $3,610 $26,364 $3,251 $13,776 $37,096 $84,097 Fringe Benefits $1,336 $9,755 $1,203 $5,097 $13,726 $31,117 Travel $0 $0 $0 $11,370 $0 $11,370 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies $1,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,450 Contractual $11,232 $1,296,200 $33,000 $29,484 $0 $1,369,916 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other:

conference fees $0 $0 $0 $2,050 $0 $2,050

Total Direct Costs $17,628 $1,332,319 $37,454 $61,777 $50,822 $1,500,000

Indirect Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Budget $17,628 $1,332,319 $37,454 $61,777 $50,822 $1,500,000

EXHIBIT A

3. WORKPLAN TASKS

Task 1 – Outreach and Site Identification

Using the grant application priority sites as a baseline inventory for ESAs, the Coalition will form, manage and work with a Brownfields Advisory Committee, community members and a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) to select additional sites in need of assessment that meet Coalition goals. The Coalition will also meet regularly with stakeholders in the target areas to understand concerns about environmental work and provide updates about assessment work. Project progress updates will be shared regularly through public meetings, website and social media postings, and follow-up meetings as appropriate. The Coalition will also hold annual on-site meetings at Magna City and CDCU.

TASK 1: OUTREACH AND SITE IDENTIFICATION

Activities/Commitments Timeframe Output Outcome Responsible Parties

Activity 1:

Use the grant application priority sites as a baseline inventory for ESAs

December 2026 and following

Initial pipeline of properties that meet

Coalition goals

Priority brownfields sites are assessed

Program Manager

Activity 2:

Convene and manage a

Brownfields Assessment Grant

Advisory Committee, composed of representatives from each Coalition partner.

October following

Meetings will be publicly noticed in advance and conducted according to state and federal open-meetings and open-records laws.

Allow for public comment during each open meeting.

Coordinated, transparent decision-making across Coalition partners; site selection and program priorities informed by partner and public input;

sustained partner engagement throughout the grant period.

Program Manager

Activity 3:

Work with the

Brownfields Advisory Committee, community members, and the QEP to identify and select additional assessment sites that align with

Coalition goals.

December following

Clear pipeline of properties that meet Coalition goals and are tracked for alignment

Brownfields sites in communities with a demonstrated need and target areas are assessed

Activity 4:

Meet regularly with stakeholders

July 2026 and following

Community meetings and interactions

Improve community knowledge on brownfield issues and identify potential sites

Program Manager

Activity 5:

Project progress updates

January 2027 and following

Public meetings, website postings, social media posts, and follow-up meetings

Inform and educate community members about brownfields

Program Manager, Salt Lake County communications team

Task 2 – Assessments (ESAs)

The QEP will develop a County-wide Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). All properties assessed under the grant will meet EPA eligibility requirements. The QEP, Coalition Members, and Brownfields Advisory Committee will secure access for assessment work. The QEP will complete approximately 31 ASTM/AAI compliant Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) on selected sites. The QEP will complete 27 Site Specific Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and Phase II ESAs on approximately 23 properties. For Phase II ESAs, the QEP will collect samples that may include soil, soil gas, surface water and groundwater to develop environmental condition profiles of key properties. The QEP will complete approximately 7 asbestos/hazardous material surveys on selected sites.

TASK 2: ASSESSMENTS (ESAs)

Parties

Activity 1:

County-wide Quality

Assurance Project Plan

(QAPP)

October

Approved QAPP in place

Assessments that meet EPA guidelines

QEP

Activity 2:

Site Eligibility

Determinations (SEDs)

December 2026 and following

Sites meet EPA eligibility requirements

Properties assessed

Program Manager

Activity 3:

Secure access for assessment work

December 2026 and following

Site access for ESAs Properties assessed

QEP, Coalition members

Activity 4:

Phase I ESAs

January 2027 and following

Approximately 31 ASTM/AAI compliant Phase I ESAs. County will review Phase I reports, relying on

UDEQ/EPA feedback as needed.

assessed. County will submit AAI checklist to EPA for each Phase I completed.

QEP

Activity 5:

Site-Specific Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and Phase II

ESAs

January 2027 and following

Approximately 23 Phase II ESAs. County will review and approve Phase II reports, relying on UDEQ/EPA feedback as needed.

Properties assessed QEP

Activity 6:

SAPs and Asbestos- Containing Materials and Hazardous Building Materials Surveys

January 2027 and following

Approximately 7 ACM/Haz Bldg.

surveys. County will review and approve

Phase II reports, relying on

UDEQ/EPA feedback as needed.

assessed QEP

Task 3 – Remediation and Reuse Planning

The Coalition will support public and non-profit property owners in developing cleanup planning documents, including Analyses of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCAs), to advance their reuse strategies. Where Phase I/II ESA findings indicate that cleanup is necessary, the QEP will develop recommendations, evaluate alternatives, and prepare cleanup planning reports for grant-funded assessment sites. Each ABCA will identify specific cleanup approaches and redevelopment strategies that are technically feasible, cost-effective, and protective of human health and the environment. EPA grant funds will support a range of cleanup planning activities and help resolve uncertainty associated with assessment findings. Throughout this process, the Coalition will conduct community outreach to ensure cleanup planning reflects the input and engagement of surrounding residents.

TASK 3: REMEDIATION AND REUSE PLANNING

Parties

Activity 1:

QEP/Stakeholder remedy selection

April 2027 and following

QEP, County and Coalition members will review cleanup alternatives and evaluate remediation plans

Draft clean-up plans based on public health, consistent with redevelopment objectives, and established fiscal criteria.

QEP, Program manager, Coalition members

Activity 2:

Technical advice for clean-up planning

April 2027 and following

QEP and County seeks technical advice from

UDEQ and EPA.

Draft clean-up plans that meet state and national standards

QEP, Program Manager, UDEQ, EPA

Activity 3:

Clean-up Planning

Reports / Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCAs)

April 2027 and following

QEP will use results to develop cleanup recommendations for at least 3 properties. The proposals will include detailed budgets indicating funds needed to implement the proposed remediation.

Properties ready for remediation QEP

Task 4 – Program Support

Salt Lake County will serve as Project Manager and be responsible for the day-to-day EPA grant operations.

Specifically, the County will be responsible for budget preparation, fiscal coordination, legal support and oversight, procurement, and contractor and staff management. The County will procure a QEP for assessments according to Salt Lake County policy and ordinance, as well as all federal regulations. The County will be responsible for Cooperative Agreement oversight, quarterly reporting, ACRES data entry, annual financial status reporting, and regular communication with its EPA project officer and UDEQ. The County will manage invoice processing according to Salt Lake County policy and ordinance, as well as all federal regulations. The County will manage all procedures and materials to support the Brownfields Advisory Committee meetings. Program Support also includes travel for EPA Brownfields Conferences for County staff.

TASK 4: PROGRAM SUPPORT

Parties

Activity 1:

Procure a Qualified

Environmental Professional (QEP)

October- November

Contract in place for

QEP

High-quality assessments that meet or exceed best practices

Program Manager

Activity 2:

Cooperative Agreement

(CA) oversight

October 2026 and following

Compliance and reporting for all EPA needs related to CA

Successful and efficient deployment of grant funds

Program Manager

Activity 3:

Quarterly and annual reporting

January 2027 and following

Quarterly progress reports submitted to EPA project officer;

annual interim Federal Financial Report and final Federal Financial Report (SF-425) submitted

Reporting progress that fulfills the grant’s scope of work, goals, and objectives

Program Manager

Activity 4:

ACRES data submission

January 2027 and following

ACRES data entered

Current database as required for congressional reporting

Activity 5:

Grant operations and management

October 2026 and following

Budgeting, invoicing, other fiscal coordination, legal support and oversight, contractor, and staff management

Successful and efficient deployment of grant funds

Program Manager

Activity 6:

Brownfields Advisory

Committee management

October 2026 and following

Regular public board meetings, site selection approvals, community feedback

Committee provides critical community engagement and guidance for grant activities

Program Manager

Activity 7:

Attend Brownfields

Conferences

As scheduled Conferences attended

Networking and learning from brownfields experts

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE

Prior to undertaking Phase II assessments, the Salt Lake County will prepare and submit a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) which meets the approval of U.S. EPA Region 8 Brownfields Program.

The QAPP will describe the project, the sampling and analytical strategies, and the methods and procedures that will be used in all Phase II assessments. The Region 8 EPA crosswalk shall be submitted with each site-specific QAPP. QAPP approval will be obtained prior to performing any field activities.

As needed, each site will have a project-specific field sampling plan and crosswalk completed and approved by EPA that will correspond to the approved QAPP.

5. PRE-AWARD COSTS

Salt Lake County does not request the approval of pre-award costs for this cooperative agreement.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

Salt Lake County will comply with other federal requirements, including but not limited to the following: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements found at 40 CFR Part 33; OSHA Worker Health & Safety Standard 29 CFR 1910.120; the Uniform Relocation Act; Historic Preservation Act; Endangered Species Act; and Permits required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, and implementing regulations at 41 CFR 60-4; Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as amended (40 USC Ch. 37) and the Anti-Kickback Act (18 USC 874) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as implemented by Executive Orders 11914 and 12250.

The County will secure the contractual services of an environmental consulting firm which meets the definition of a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) and can duly ensure that Phase I/II ESAs are ASTM and AAI compliant. County selection of the environmental contractor will comply with competitive procurement standards as outlined in Salt Lake County Ordinance 3.22 and the County’s Procurement Policies (which are more stringent than the Procurement Standards per the Code of Federal Regulations: 2 CFR 200.317-326).

EPA Region 8 Brownfields Program Site Eligibility Determination Outline

To be used for determining site eligibility under Community-Wide Assessment Grants & 128(a) Grant site-specific work

Today’s Date:

Start date of Proposed Work:

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Grantee Name:

2. Grant Number:

3. Grant Type:

104(k) Assessment 128(a) State & Tribal Response

4. Work to be conducted (please check all that apply):

Phase 1 Assessment

Phase 2 Assessment

Cleanup Planning

Cleanup Activities

5. Anticipated funding amount total:

5a. Answer only for grants awarded prior to December 30, 2019:

Anticipated funding amount, if both hazardous substance and petroleum funding will be used:

Hazardous Substances amount:

Petroleum amount:

Version: 1/26/2024

Latitude: Longitude:

What is the land status?

B. SITE INFORMATION

1. Property Name:

2. Property Address (Street, City, State, Zip)

3. Current owner:

4. For Tribal Grantees only:

Trust lands owned by the US Government and held in trust for the Tribe or an individual (allotment) Tribal government-owned fee lands Privately owned fee lands not owned by the tribal government within an Indian Reservation

Area-Wide Planning, site-specific

EXHIBIT B

NO

7. Known or suspected contaminant(s)**:

Hazardous substances (including mine scarred lands and controlled substances) Hazardous substances commingled with petroleum

Petroleum is the dominant contaminant Hazardous substances are the dominant contaminants

Petroleum

** If suspected petroleum contamination is from a state-regulated source, an eligibility letter from the state will be required. If property is on tribal land, EPA must make the determination.

8. Known or…